Talk:List of quasars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Purpose of this page?

See also: WT:ASTRO

I don't see the purpose of this page. There are now some hundreds of thousands of quasars known (e.g. the SDSS has spectra of ~100,000, 2dF has ~25,000). Most of the entries on this list have very little information provided about them besides a link to NED and/or SIMBAD. Unless we have guidelines for inclusion, I think this whole page should be deleted. I'll wait a while to hear counter arguments, and then I'll make a request for deletion. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings, but a list of notable quasrs might be helpful. They could just be listed as links individually in the quasar article "See also" section, but that might be a bit lengthy. I do think, that to be of any use at all, there should be some comment here re notability; to this end I just commented the obvious two. Wwheaton (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If we have a good definition of notability, then I'll be happy. Historically important is a good rationale, and ones with a separate name (e.g. Einstein's Cross) are ok. Beyond that, what else? - Parejkoj (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How about:

List of gravitationally-lensed multiple-image quasars

Early discoveries

10 earliest discovered quasars
10 earliest discovered radio-quiet quasars
10 earliest discovered OVV quasars
10 earliest discovered host galaxies containing quasars
10 earliest discovered gravitationally lensed multipe-image quasars

extreme quasars

10 highest red-shift quasars
10 lowest red-shift quasars
10 most powerful quasars
10 least powerful quasars

Historically relevant quasars

list of quasars that were considered most distant by order of succession in discovery
list of quasars that were considered most powerful by order of succession in discovery
list of quasars that were considered least powerful by order of succession in discovery
list of quasars that were considered least distant by order of succession in discovery

Quasars related to exoplanet claims (ie. Twin Quasar).

70.55.87.175 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be a very difficult list to maintain. Having 10 items per is going to be difficult to keep track of, since in some cases there were just a handful and then suddenly dozens when a new survey came online. And for the "extreme" ones, someone will have to update it every year or so when new ones are discovered. Maybe just a short list of the first discovered ones, the named ones and a few current record holders. - Parejkoj (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people would need to update it, but that's true of ever so many articles on Wikipedia concering sports. And the Exoplanets list of extremes is also periodically updated. It's just a chore that needs to be kept track of. First 10 is an extremely common listing limit, so I chose that to keep it uniform. And once established, they won't change. The considered most/least lists just need to add a new entry everytime a recordholder changes. 70.51.10.113 (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The recent edits include a "List of superluminal quasars" - do you mean "List of quasars with apparent superluminal jet motion" or "List of quasars with apparent superluminal redshifts"? The first might be worthwhile, the second not. And the "First star later found..." and "First radio source later found..." are just going to duplicate 3C 48 and 3C 273, I think, unless you mean something different by those. Otherwise, I think this reorganization isn't too bad. Once it is cleaned up a bit, let's delete the long list at the top, and probably some of those pages as well, if this is the only thing that links to them. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant superluminal jets. I'll change the title. As for duplication, that's fine, since the first is a separate first, even if the same quasar acheived it. As for First Star and First Radio source, no they are not duplicates. As the 3C catalog is of radio sources and not stars, then the first discovered star later found to be a quasar would be something else. Some 19th century "stars" were found to be quasars, and those predate radio, so can't be 3C objects. As for first radio source, IIRC some early radio sources were later linked to optical sources, and hence the identification of quasar postdates 3C 48 and 3C 273, as the optical counterpart wasn't discovered until later. 70.55.84.173 (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. I didn't understand what you meant by the wording. Those two will be very hard to track down, but I wish you (or whomever wants to do so) luck! - Parejkoj (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The first section can be converted to a list of otherwise very notable quasars. It would be come a controlled list, like other lists that from the title would be overly general, but in reality is restricted to the very notable ones. Since the page has other lists, then only ones that are notable for other reasons that listed further in the page would be in the first list. This would not preclude duplication of entries further down the page, since other notability may include those quasars listed for other reasons. For instance, the Twin Quasar has a suspected planet associated with a microlensing event in one of its lobes. 70.55.84.168 (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But there are also a whole slew of pages that are just stubs for apparently random sources. It looks like they just had data copied from NED, and are not notable at all. I'll wait for you to finish reorganizing, and then I'll go delete them. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it hasn't been rebuilt yet. Alot of them were added by User:CarloscomB. You can reorganize the first list on the page anytime you want. I didn't use the {{underconstruction}} or {{inuse}} so that anyone can start help fixing the list up. 70.55.84.105 (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The CarloscomB list additions and the articles themselves have problems. Many of them are not by many strict definitions of quasars, actually quasars, they are other types of active galaxies... 70.51.9.251 (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)